Misguiding The Faith… since 1969…

The Third Typical Latin Edition of the Paul VI “Roman” Missal came into effect in 2002. The Second Typical Latin Edition dates from 1975, and the First Typical Latin Edition, as we know, came into being in 1969, thus officially and effectively supplanting the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass, whose last reform, along with the Breviary, was enacted by John XXIII’s Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, dated 25 July 1960.

Further minor modifications to the Roman Missal and Roman Breviary have made these commonly known as the 1962 liturgical books, the very last versions just before the inauguration of Vatican II, and the liturgical “reforms” therefrom.

With the advent of Paul VI’s 1969 Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum and his 1970 Apostolic Constitution, Laudis Canticum, the Novus Ordo Missæ came to alter the Rite of Mass, and the Liturgia Horarum came to alter the prayer of the Divine Office.

But, of course, the age-old adage—lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi—that is, the law of prayer is the law of belief, and the law of living the faith, cannot be underestimated. In other words, tell me how you pray liturgically, and I will tell you what you believe, and also how you live out your faith.

Therefore, when you alter liturgical rites, i.e., collects, prefaces, other prayer elements, wording, expressions, adaptations, etc., you inevitability run the risk of changing far more than mere linguistic styles: you run the risk of actually changing the law of belief, of actually changing the faith, and thus of changing the lives of those who profess that faith.

Naturally, in no way does this mean that the Catholic Church lacks the Apostolic Authority to establish and govern her liturgical rites. Holy Mother Church has been doing this since her Divine-Apostolic origins.

But, truth be told, up until Vatican II (1962-1965), liturgical reforms had always been done in an organic manner, that is, always following a natural development, always respectful of Apostolic Tradition, always maintaining the same meaning of the Catholic faith in her liturgical expressions.

And so, here’s a prime example of misleading liturgical expressions in the Novus Ordo Missal which, though not heretical per se, not even materially, is nonetheless a flawed text for it does not adequately convey the Catholic faith: Præfatio Paschalis II / Preface II of Easter.

The problem is subtly found in the second strophe, which rather boldly exclaims partial truths, but mixed with misleading implications: Through him {Christ} the children of light rise to eternal life and the halls of the heavenly Kingdom are thrown open to the faithful; for his Death is our ransom from death, and in his rising the life of all has risen.

It never ceases to amaze me, alas, being a bi-ritual diocesan priest, how Novus Ordo liturgical expressions oftentimes provide a peculiar mixture of Catholic truths along with misleading implications for the life of faith, which inevitably confounds and disorients the faithful as to those truths.

In fact, theological and liturgical half-truths can be—and usually are—even more dangerous to the faith than outright doctrinal errors. Why is this so? Because half-truths have indeed an element of truth to them, and so the “omissions” are harder to discern, precisely because of the truths that are omitted.

It is well known, thanks to the luminous Magisterium of Pope St. Pius X, in his splendid encyclical against the Modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (08-IX-1907), that these proponents of the “synthesis of all heresies” endeavor to carefully ensnare unwary faithful with ambiguous wording, or by employing the rather effective tactic of mixing truth with error. They’re experts in the art.

The Holy Father, of heartfelt, grateful and immortal happy memory, warns us like the Good Shepherd he was on earth as the Vicar of Christ:

4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results…

And so, we have this very problematic second strophe from the Easter Preface II… For indeed it is most certainly correct to say that in Christ, through his resurrection, the children of light—that is, the baptized—rise with Him to eternal life and the halls of the heavenly Kingdom are opened to the faithful, it is true in the objective sense, not necessarily in the subjective sense.

But this does not really represent any theological problem, because it is a given that Catholics should always know how to distinguish between objective and subjective realities. In other words, though Christ’s priestly and sacrificial death on the Cross is the price of our redemption—that is, we are objectively saved by Him—it does not follow automatically that we will be saved.

Still, Easter Preface II gets this right, too: for his Death is the ransom from death… Indeed, it is Christ’s death on the Cross that redeems us, not his resurrection. His resurrection is the blessed consequence of Christ’s perfect obedience to the will of his Father.

Redemption and salvation are inseparably related, but they are not identical in meaning. Thus, though his Resurrection certainly has a salvific dimension, it is his Sacrifice which is properly redemptive.

Therefore, thesingle most important act that can be considered to be properly redemptive is his Sacrifice, precisely the Mysterium Fidei, the Mystery of Faith that we celebrate as a sacrament on the altar, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So, up to now, Easter Preface II is fine.

No, the real theological problem comes right away: and in his rising the life of all has risen. The Third Typical Edition Missal for Spain translates the same expression: porque en la muerte de Cristo nuestra muerte ha sido vencida, y en su resurrección gloriosa hemos resucitado todos.

Literally translated from Castilian: for in Christ’s death, our death has been defeated and in his glorious resurrection all of us have risen.

The Latin text is better in this regard, though with the same fundamentally misleading expression: Quia mors nostra est eius morte redémpta, et in eius resurrectióne vita ómnium resurréxit / Who by his death our death is redeemed, and in his resurrection the life of us all has risen.

Given the context of Eastertide, when Christ’s glorious resurrection is being joyously celebrated, this expression strongly gives the impression that everyone is going to rise, indeed that we already have risen… to eternal life, in other words, that all will ultimately be saved, in soul and in body.

Still, this expression cannot really be considered even materially heretical as written, hence how more insidiously misleading it is. It correctly incorporates Pauline theology wherein the Apostle writes (Rom 6: 1-5):

What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. {cf. Amoris Lætitia no. 303 outright contradicts this apostolic and dogmatic teaching, but I digress…}

For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

The Apostle ad Gentes likewise mentions a renewal, a (spiritual) resurrection of our earthly lives, thanks to the power of the Lord’s resurrection, whereby the baptized, the children of light (as the preface says), rise to eternal life, though the theological implied meaning is only potentially.

But yes, it is part of the Catholic faith, that in the Last Day of Universal Judgement, the resurrection of the body will indeed take place for everyone.

But… though everyone will indeed rise on the Last Day, the subjectively (not only objectively) redeemed (by Christ’s Sacrifice) will rise in the Resurrection for eternal life, but the condemned will paradoxically rise in the Resurrection for eternal death, or Judgement.

This is most clearly revealed by Christ himself through the Apostolic Tradition of St. John (5: 25-29): Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour comes, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. Wonder not at this: for the hour comes wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.

The resurrection of Judgement is eternal death or eternal condemnation, the exact opposite of eternal life.

The Church understands eternal life as living forever in Heaven, in immortal soul upon death and particular judgement, having possibly gone through being purified in Purgatory, and with the sure hope of a resurrected body on the Last Day of Universal Judgement.

The Church understands eternal death, not as annihilation of our beings, not a return to the nothingness of our non-existence from which we were created by God in his image and likeness, but rather “living” forever in Hell, in immortal soul after death and particular judgement, and with the sure despair of a resurrected body on the Last Day of Universal Judgement.

The Catholic Encyclopædia, under the article, Resurecction, General, clearly states: The Fourth Lateran Council {1215} teaches that all men, whether elect or reprobate, “will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear about with them” (cap. “Firmiter”). In the language of the creeds and professions of faith this return to life is called resurrection of the body (resurrectio carnis, resurrectio mortuoram, anastasis ton nekron) for a double reason: first, since the soul cannot die, it cannot be said to return to life; second the heretical contention of Hymeneus and Philitus that the Scriptures denote by resurrection not the return to life of the body, but the rising of the soul from the death of sin to the life of grace, must be excluded.

The great St. Augustine says: No doctrine of the Christian Faith is so vehemently and so obstinately opposed as the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh” (In Ps. lxxxviii, sermo ii, n. 5).

Thus explained these divinely revealed truths of the Catholic faith, we come to several conclusions regarding the liturgical expression of said truths, as written in the Easter Preface II of the Novus Ordo Missal.

1. Can one give a Catholic interpretation of this liturgical text? Yes, most certainly. But this must be done in order to avoid misconceptions of the faith. One could of course argue that liturgical texts are celebrative and not formal catechesis nor expositions of theology.

True enough. But the liturgy is the ordinary expression of the faith, which necesarily implies a solid theological foundation and can normally be the only formation the faithful have access to.

Still, it would be preferable for liturgical and magisterial texts to be written with a full sensus Catholicus, instead of having to parse them to get the authentic Catholic interpretation out of them…

2. Is this liturgical text heretical, if only in a material sense, as written in Latin and officially translated (at least to English and Castilian)? Well, no, not really, for like I have mentioned before in this article, it incorporates elements of Catholic truths, but omits certain other Catholic truths which are imperative to get the full Catholic perspective.

It also fails to make the proper distinctions of the objectivereality of Christ’s redemptive death and salvific resurrection, and the potentiality of its applicability to the faithful.

The problem is not so much what it says, as how it says it, and especially by what it does not say or even imply, while taking into account the liturgical context of Eastertide.

Though not materially heretical in the sense that it does not positively teach error in Catholic doctrine, it can certainly lead to heresy by the truths it omits regarding eschatology.

3. In the final analysis, is this text apt for liturgical use? I would say no for the reasons outlined above.

Alas, dear readers, an astute mixture of truth and error by omission. With more examples throughout the year. Such is the way of things in a liturgy which is no longer centered on the One and Triune God. And what consequences that means for us, poor sinners, exiled children of Eve, in this vale of tears.

Related Posts

Latest Comments

my2centsJune 6, 2017

Dear Father Campo,
Thank you for your very enlightening and inspiring contributions to Louie’s blog.
Could you list anything in the PRE-Vatican II Catholic Church that was left UNTOUCHED after the Second Vatican Council? I think your knowledgeable input would be beneficial for all, but especially for those who think the changes were very minor and inconsequential. Please do not feel you must list all that WAS changed. There is not enough time in the day for you to write it or for us to read it. God bless you, Father.

Thank you kindly, my2cents. As to your query, I’m hardly an expert on the issue. My general understanding is that the Novus Ordo Missal borrows from ancient sacramentaries and sometimes leaves the prayers untouched, or substantially unaltered. But not always, of course. In countless instances, these ancient and most venerable prayers have either been dispensed with altogether, or adapted to the modern mentality. For what it’s worth!

A 1945 St. Andrew’s Roman Missal, eh, john6?
Very wise of you to suggest a pre-1962 edition… 😉

Fr Campo
Just thought I’d suggest the 1945 St Andrews daily missal as reading your article and talking on the liturgy brought the thought to my mind. As a side note It has helped me greatly to pray better during holy mass and gives a great understanding of the Sundays and feast days ,it has historical and doctrinal notes for different times of the liturgical year. I find myself praying a lot more after mass due to the prayers and understanding of thanksgiving it presents. It has the Litanys and benediction prayers ,consecration and reparation prayers to the sacred heart and whole lot more it also has prayers for second vespers on Sundays and holy days I can’t recommend it enough for a more prayerful and understanding of Holy mass. I started out at the traditional mass with a simple missal of the ordinary of mass and used to pick up a sheet when there was 1 at the back of church with the propers of that days mass. Most priests a came across at the time indult priests would before the sermon repeat the epistle and gospel in English first. So sometimes there wasn’t a sheet with the propers. Because I was new to tradition and realised what had and was happening in the church I wanted to know more and more about the traditional mass. This lead me to wanting a missal so I started with my grandma’s Sunday missal which she had as a child but was only basic. I did some research came across the St Andrews daily missal bought 1 and haven’t looked back since. Even though the rites of Holy Week and other changes have been made i find it even serves to remind me of what we have lost even in comparison to the 62 missal.

Father Campo, thank you for your response. It never ceases to amaze me how the V2 Modernists were so thorough in their destruction. Architecture, vestments, devotions, the sacraments, the Precepts of the Church, the liturgical calendar, Holy Days of Obligation, and the list goes on and on. Why? For the good of the Church and the Faithful? I don’t think so. It’s an entirely different religion. KEEP THE FAITH, FRIENDS!—-THE TRUE FAITH!

Rushintuit, I agree that +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was providential in saving Tradition. It is my understanding that he believed that the 1962 editions of the Roman Missal and Roman Breviary were the last versions fully acceptable from a Catholic perspective.

But even those editions already had what some consider the seeds for further tampering leading up to the objective liturgical rupture that is the Novus Ordo of 1969. Even some reforms under Pius XII during the 1950s are criticized by some for the same reasons.

I am wont to say that the John XXIII 1962 liturgical books, even with its questionable elements, are the last editions of the traditional Roman rite handed down throughout the centuries.

Thank you for your article. You mention something of great import: you stated that the “Mysterium Fidei” of the Canon refers to our Lord’s sacrifice. In the original Canon it refers to “HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI…” to our Lord’s Precious Blood. In the current “prayers” the Mysterium Fidei refers to His death and resurrection, but not sacrifice. Patrick Omlor’s study indicates that this is not only a change in emphasis, but also meaning; if tue, a change in meaning renders the consecration invalid. In the Chutch’s mind, that is a whole truth.

I am curious why you are still serving a ritual so nebulous, doubtful and riddled with half truths and quite frankly, probably invalid. As Louis likes to say, “a new mass in a new church with a new calendar.”

I too am stymied why such intelligent people continue to call an anti-Catholic enterprise, Catholic. When compared to 1945 or 1845 or 1745 Catholicism and belief, not a shred of that Church remains in the Conciliar Church.

FatherMonk and Tom A: thank you both for your imput. My personal and ecclesial circumstances do not permit me to celebrate exclusively the TLM… for the time being.

As for not a shred of Catholic faith remaining in the Conciliar Church, the accent falls on Church instead of Conciliar. Meaning that the accent should fall rather on Conciliar, if you will.

The theological and indeed very problematical issue for us is the visibility of the Church and her indefectability. The Church is One. To accuse the Conciliar Church of not being Catholic, the accent should fall on Conciliar, not on Church, if you take my meaning.

One could therefore paradoxically argue that the Church is defectable because of Vatican II, which would be erroneous. Or that the Church is indefectable despite Vatican II. 😉

Father Jose, your observations are well noted. But what is not clear, the the Reason for these changes. On the basis of “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” why did teams of Modernists fall into action to adapt, change and destroy key elements of the the fabric of our Sacraments, ceremonies and so on.?
Were the Protestant periti so convincing a Vatican 2, to tip the balance? We read most of the dissenters were in the minority. I can only opine that the scale of the devastation was of a diabolical dimension, too subtle for just a handful of heretics, but the darnel spread far and wide by the evil one of Darkness.

Simple Shepherd: As far as the destruction of the liturgy is concerned, have you read this continuing series of articles (up to 52 so far) that explain the history of who, why, and when the movement to destroy the liturgy (and our Catholic faith) began, which includes the destroyer’s own words and lots of documentation? If not, it explains a lot and is worth reading.

Fr, if you believe that the damage is of “diabolical dimensions”, why do you still cooperate with the forces that were behind this damage. By continuing to offer a liturgy designed by man instead of God, are you not an accomplice of this evil by default? Even if your intentions are honorable and you seek a true restoration, by objectively cooperating with the NO sect you are objectively guilty of promoting their evil. I am curious as to how you rationalize or justify what actions you take. I firmly believe our beliefs must be know by our actions.

Simple Shepherd–Your thoughts confirm what I have expressed in my comments above. Why is there almost no resemblance between the Pre-V2 Church and the Post V2 “church”? Evil Modernists have been very successful in wiping out every memory of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Those old enough to remember will eventually die and those raised in the V2 era will never know it existed at all. Father Camp used the words “diabolical dimension”. That’s exactly right! I hope the SSPX leadership sees it that way also.

For an extensive list (and I mean extensive) of the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass, the author of this website must have spent hundreds of hours documenting them. What a service to expose the diabolical influence of the NO! I have said many prayers of thanks to this person.

Katherine, while there is much good information on the website you offer, if you dig deeper you will find that their position is quite indult oriented. I would stay away from indult masses myself since the Rites of Ordination after 1968 are doubtful.